this time around. The Judge has ruled the Prosecution may not use the "tape recording"; only the Defense may; and the Defense Attorney is not likely to do so.
This should be pretty straight forward.
Did he set the fire or not; typically arson is pretty easy to confirm. So the issue then becomes one of tying him to the flash points if arson is the case. OR, did he forget and leave something cooking on the stove which ignited?
If he intentionally set the fire, did he do so with the intent to defraud the insurance company? It was reported the property had no mortgage; so its not as though he was trying to avoid foreclosure.
And how would he collect from the Insurance Company? Fire losses are typically paid to the contractor which performs the repairs. Normally, the Named Insured, and I assume that is Frog, would only collect for lost personal property. From a practical standpoint, if he needed to raise cash, why not sell his former Corvette or hold a yard sale?
Of the 2 apparent issues, the second is likely going to be the more challenging.
So, it would not appear there will be much drama associated with this one.
Ramone -- you may need to carry and wear that hat you were sporting the other day during the 6:00 morning hour to give Columbus County residents some street entertainment.
More information about formatting options